Rohingya Repatriation: How Far Away Is a Solution?

। Bay Insight Report ।

It has been nearly nine years since the Rohingyas who fled Myanmar’s Rakhine State in 2017 took shelter in Bangladesh. During this period, repatriation has been discussed many times. Lists have been prepared and verified, Bangladesh and Myanmar have held talks, and there have been two initiatives to begin repatriation.

Yet not a single Rohingya has been able to return to Myanmar.

Rohingya leaders say they have been hearing since 2018 that repatriation would happen “today or tomorrow.” But in reality, there has been no visible progress towards repatriation.
The question now is not simply when the Rohingyas will return. The bigger questions are: under what circumstances will they return, with whom will an agreement be reached, and what kind of security and dignity will they have upon their return?

The reason is that the situation in Myanmar has changed dramatically over the past few years. Large parts of Rakhine State are now under the control of the Arakan Army. This has also raised questions about how capable Myanmar’s central government is of implementing the agreements it previously reached with Bangladesh.

At the same time, the Rohingyas’ citizenship, identity, security, land and property rights, and the guarantee of living with dignity after returning remain uncertain.

Against this backdrop, participants at a roundtable discussion titled “How Far Is the Future of Rohingya Repatriation?” in Cox’s Bazar – including researchers, Rohingya representatives, government officials, UN representatives, development workers, civil society members and local elected representatives – broadly agreed on one point: repatriation is the primary and sustainable solution, but the conditions for repatriation have not yet been created.
At the same time, there is no scope to simply keep the Rohingyas waiting for repatriation.
‘Repatriation Does Not Happen by Words Alone’

Syed Ullah, president of the United Council of Rohingya, questioned the nature of Bangladesh’s long-standing efforts to facilitate repatriation.

He said there are specific steps that need to be taken for repatriation to happen, or even to determine whether it is possible. And to undertake those steps, a strategic plan is necessary.
“Repatriation does not happen by words alone. Since 2018, we have been hearing that repatriation will happen today or tomorrow. But we have seen no reflection of those words in reality,” he said.

According to him, it is no longer enough to discuss the possibility of repatriation; efforts must be based on the current situation.

“We have to keep an eye on what is happening in national policy, global policy and Myanmar policy,” Syed Ullah said.

He also rejected the idea that the Rohingya crisis should be viewed as Bangladesh’s problem alone. In his words, it is primarily a problem of Myanmar, secondly a problem of Bangladesh and thirdly a problem for other countries as well.

Identity at the Heart of the Repatriation Question

Syed Ullah placed particular emphasis on Myanmar’s position regarding Rohingya identity.
He believes that a deliberate narrative lies behind Myanmar’s longstanding description of the Rohingyas as “Bengalis.”

He explained that because Bangladesh is located close to the Bay of Bengal, Myanmar seeks to use the Rohingyas’ presence in Bangladesh as evidence that they are “Bengalis.”
According to him, Myanmar is trying to establish internationally the idea that the Rohingyas are people from Bangladesh who at some point illegally settled in Myanmar and later returned to Bangladesh.

“They want to prove that we are Bengalis,” Syed Ullah said.

According to him, the Rohingyas’ displacement did not begin in 2017. Rohingyas came to Bangladesh from Myanmar at different times, including in 1991, 2016, 2017 and 2024. Therefore, he believes that viewing the crisis merely as a recent episode of “migration” would obscure its historical reality.

Syed Ullah also made a simple appeal to Bangladesh.

He said Bangladesh should not view the Rohingyas as part of any political “game,” but should treat them as human beings.

“We are not putting any kind of pressure on Bangladesh. We only want peace,” he said.

‘90 Percent of Arakan Is Under the Arakan Army’

Mujibur Rahman, a Rohingya youth leader and president of the Arakan Football Federation, highlighted another major reality surrounding repatriation: who controls Rakhine State today.
He said the Rohingya crisis is not a small crisis. It is not Bangladesh’s problem alone; it is an international and global crisis.

He believes that understanding the current situation in Arakan also requires an understanding of its geopolitical importance.

Mujibur Rahman said around 90 percent of Arakan is now under the control of the Arakan Army. Therefore, he said, Bangladesh cannot deal with repatriation solely through discussions with Myanmar’s central government.

According to him, Bangladesh must reach necessary agreements and undertake diplomatic initiatives with China and India.

“This must be done,” he said.

How the Arakan Army came to control such a large territory and what role regional and global powers have played in the process are also linked to the future of repatriation, he said.

The Rohingya youth leader also expressed anger over Myanmar’s recent terminology regarding the Rohingyas.

He alleged that while the Rohingyas were previously referred to as “Muslims,” Myanmar’s current rhetoric uses even more derogatory terms.

“We are not beggars. We are the people of Arakan, the homeland of our fathers, forefathers and generations,” Mujibur Rahman said.

According to him, if Myanmar genuinely wanted to take the Rohingyas back, it would accept them by recognising their proper identity.

He also expressed concern about the Arakan Army’s position towards the Rohingyas. He alleged that the Arakan Army has adopted a dual policy towards the Rohingyas and that their security and future in areas under its control remain uncertain.

His greatest fear, however, is that anti-Rohingya sentiment could also grow in Bangladesh.
“We fear one thing the most, and that is also happening in Bangladesh. That is the creation of an anti-Rohingya movement or sentiment here,” he said.

‘There Is No Confusion About the Rohingyas’ Identity’

Arafat-ul-Alam, a camp-in-charge, said the Rohingyas are people of Arakan in Myanmar and there should be no confusion about their Rohingya identity.

His remarks highlighted the reality facing the new generation born in the camps.
For a child born in a camp, instead of the normal foundations of family, society and identity that should accompany birth, there are limited rations, temporary shelter and the reality of statelessness.

According to Arafat-ul-Alam, confusion about Rohingya identity is being created by those who want to create such confusion.

He said Bangladesh has not denied the Rohingyas’ identity. Rather, Bangladesh has given them shelter while recognising them as people of the Rohingya community and citizens of Myanmar.

‘There Can Be No Solution Without Taking the Arakan Army Into Account’

Professor Rahman Nasir Uddin, an anthropologist at the University of Chittagong and a refugee expert, raised one of the most important questions of the discussion: the political reality surrounding Rohingya identity and repatriation.

According to him, the process of depriving the Rohingyas of citizenship is part of Myanmar’s state policy. Repatriation discussions cannot move forward without addressing this politics of identity denial.

He said the 1982 Citizenship Law restricted the citizenship rights of the Rohingyas.
But the question of identity is not merely historical. What legal status the Rohingyas will have after returning to Myanmar is central to their future security, he said.

He also warned that treating the Rohingyas merely as recipients of humanitarian assistance obscures the political reality of the crisis.

He described some of the negative perceptions developing about Rohingyas in Bangladesh as a tendency to blame the victims themselves.

There may be criminals or members of armed groups within such a large population, he said, but the actions of individuals or groups should not be attributed to the entire community.

He stressed that the reality of Arakan Army control in Rakhine State must also be incorporated into any repatriation plan.

He questioned whether Myanmar’s central government is still capable of implementing the agreement it reached with Bangladesh.

“The central government does not have the capacity to implement the agreement. So whom did we make the agreement with?” he asked.

According to him, any current repatriation discussion must take into account the relationship among Myanmar’s central government, the Arakan Army and the Rohingyas.

He also said that interviews he conducted with Rohingyas who arrived in Bangladesh after 2024 revealed evidence of even more intense violence than in the past. In his words, there are indications that “genocide is continuing,” while the relationship between the Rohingyas and the Arakan Army is also an important consideration for repatriation.

He said at least three things must be guaranteed before repatriation: legal recognition of the Rohingyas, security and social protection, and human dignity.

“We came here to escape death. Should we jump into the face of death again?” he asked, raising concerns about security upon return.

In other words, repatriation is not simply a process of sending people across the border. It involves citizenship, security, land and property rights, livelihoods, education and guarantees for future generations.

‘There Is Still No Plan After Nine Years’

Marcel Collon, head of the UNHCR Cox’s Bazar Sub-Office, said the Rohingyas want to return, but even after nine years there is still no clear plan for how repatriation will take place.

“It is still an aspiration, but there is no concrete plan for how it will be implemented,” he said.
He considers an end to all forms of conflict in Myanmar to be the first condition for repatriation.

After that, the Rohingyas’ security, their right to return to their own areas, opportunities to reclaim their land and homes, and citizenship or at least fundamental rights close to citizenship would need to be ensured.

He also cautioned that creating these conditions could take time.

“It could take another one, two or three years,” he said.

According to him, to create these conditions Bangladesh will need to work not only with Myanmar but also with neighbouring countries and influential international actors.
Can Bangladesh Simply Wait for Repatriation?

As the necessary conditions for repatriation may take more time to develop, another question is emerging: how should the Rohingyas living in Bangladesh be supported during that period?

UNHCR representatives highlighted another important aspect of the crisis: after nine years, the Rohingyas cannot remain confined to emergency humanitarian assistance alone.

A long-term response is needed for a protracted crisis. At the same time, Bangladesh needs a national refugee policy or framework so that it can address the current crisis while also preparing to respond if refugees arrive from another neighbouring country in the future.
Development worker Faria Hossain also believes that nine years is not a short period. The Rohingya crisis is no longer at the stage of an immediate emergency response; it has become a protracted crisis.

According to her, the people at the centre of the discussion must also be included at the discussion table. Their feelings, expectations and visions for the future must be taken into account whenever the issue is reconsidered.

In other words, the solution should not be discussed merely “about the Rohingyas,” but “with the Rohingyas.”

‘The Rohingyas Need to Become Productive’

The discussion also highlighted the need to connect the Rohingyas with education, skills development and livelihoods rather than keeping a huge population inactive inside the camps.

The large number of women among the Rohingya population also creates opportunities to involve them in skills development and productive activities.

Examples were given of productive activities among Rohingyas on Bhasan Char and initiatives such as soap production in the camps, demonstrating that Rohingyas can show their capabilities when given opportunities.

This is not an alternative to repatriation. Rather, it is part of the question of how to make the period before repatriation more humane and meaningful.

Professor Rahman Nasir Uddin also said that instead of allowing people’s capabilities to deteriorate by keeping them idle in camps for years, opportunities for education, skills development and livelihoods should be created.

He also called for policy solutions regarding a Myanmar-based education system, certification and future employment opportunities for Rohingyas.

Third-Country Resettlement: A Path or a New Complication?

Subrata Chakraborty, an adviser to BRAC, said there are three internationally recognised durable solutions to refugee crises: repatriation, local integration and third-country resettlement.

He believes there is no realistic opportunity for local integration in Bangladesh. Therefore, alongside repatriation, the option of third-country resettlement should also remain open.
Although the number of people resettled may be limited, he said, giving even one family a permanent home in another country can have a long-term impact. He therefore supports reviving the initiative.

However, his position was also clear that repatriation remains the primary solution.
For this, he said, Bangladesh needs a clear government policy, a diplomatic roadmap and the engagement of international and regional actors.

Camp-in-Charge Arafat-ul-Alam, however, raised a different concern regarding third-country resettlement.

According to him, the opportunity is creating a new mindset among some Rohingyas, with some beginning to see Canada, Australia or other countries as their future destination rather than Myanmar.

Based on his experience working in the camps, he said that because “vulnerability” is one of the criteria for resettlement, some people are trying to portray themselves as more vulnerable. This is creating a kind of competition and a sense of deprivation among those who are not selected.

According to him, this could weaken the desire for repatriation.
“Repatriation is the only solution,” he said.

Bangladesh’s Policy Is Also Focused on Repatriation: Camp Official

Arafat-ul-Alam also sought to clarify the position of the Bangladesh government.
He said Bangladesh has never adopted a policy of permanently settling the Rohingyas in the country.

Temporary shelter, Myanmar-based education and initiatives to preserve Rohingya history and heritage are all part of what he described as a repatriation-oriented policy.

He said initiatives such as Rohingya centres are also aimed at keeping the younger generation connected with their past, present and hopes for the future.
At the same time, he said attention must be paid to ensuring that the livelihoods of host communities are not harmed.

‘They Must Return With Dignity’

Abu Morshed Chowdhury Khoka, president of the Cox’s Bazar Civil Society, raised another difficult question about the reality of repatriation.

The essence of his argument was that if more than 1.2 million people are to be returned gradually, it is easy to understand how long the process could take.

But simply sending people across the border does not constitute repatriation, he said. There must be a guarantee that they return with dignity.

He believes international attention to the Rohingya crisis has declined after the emergence of other crises, including those in Afghanistan and Ukraine.

At the same time, he acknowledged that managing such a massive humanitarian crisis would be difficult for Bangladesh without international assistance.

His argument therefore had two elements: increasing international pressure to ensure the return of the Rohingyas, while simultaneously protecting the interests of local communities in Bangladesh.

After nine years, the impact of the crisis on the local economy, environment and social structure could continue to increase, participants noted.

Just as the safety and dignity of Rohingyas must be considered, the dignity and interests of the local population that has been bearing the consequences of the crisis for years must also be taken into account.

‘The Rohingyas Also Need Unity Among Themselves’

Helal Uddin, a member of Rajapalong Union Parishad in Ukhiya, said local people and Rohingyas had maintained a degree of familial relationship for a long time, but the arrival of a huge number of Rohingyas after 2017 has greatly increased the problems.

According to him, there are divisions within the Rohingya community itself. Conflicts among different organisations and groups and violence inside the camps are contributing to a negative international image of the Rohingyas.

Journalists and local representatives at the discussion also highlighted the risk that camp-based conflicts, activities of various armed groups and related incidents could lead to the entire Rohingya population being portrayed negatively.

Helal Uddin called for greater unity among Rohingyas and mechanisms to ensure that their views reach policymakers.

He also stressed the need to ensure coexistence between local communities and Rohingyas until repatriation takes place.

Administration Asks: ‘How Will the Solution Be Achieved?’

Additional Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commissioner Nazmul Islam Bhuiyan stressed the need for a forum where researchers, Rohingya representatives, development organisations and local stakeholders can discuss the issue together.

He said that if such discussions could produce clear recommendations for policymakers, they could be useful to the government.

In other words, the roundtable discussion should not remain merely an exchange of views; it should be transformed into a policy recommendation or policy brief.

This could create an opportunity to bring administrative experience and the experiences of people at the grassroots level into a common policy framework.

International Engagement Is Essential

Many participants said the Rohingya crisis can no longer be viewed simply as a bilateral issue between Bangladesh and Myanmar.

The roles of regional powers, the international community, ASEAN, China and India are also important.

BRAC adviser Subrata Chakraborty said bilateral diplomacy alone would not be sufficient for repatriation; multilateral engagement is necessary.

The civil society discussion also touched on the geopolitical and economic interests of China and India and Bangladesh’s diplomatic position.

So, What Lies Ahead?

Taken together, the various views expressed at the roundtable point to several parallel paths for addressing the Rohingya crisis.

First, diplomatic pressure must be increased to create a safe environment in Myanmar while keeping repatriation as the primary objective.

Second, regional and international actors, including ASEAN, need to become more actively involved rather than leaving the issue solely to Bangladesh and Myanmar.
Third, Bangladesh needs a long-term national policy and framework for the Rohingyas.
Fourth, education, skills development and livelihood opportunities need to be expanded until repatriation becomes possible.

Fifth, efforts should be made to revive limited opportunities for third-country resettlement.
And most importantly, Rohingyas themselves must have a place in the decision-making process.

For nine years, much has been said about the Rohingyas. But the question now being raised by development worker Faria Hossain and many other participants is how much the Rohingyas themselves have been present at the table when decisions about their future were being made.

Nine Years Later, the Question Has Changed

In 2017, the question was how to save the Rohingyas.
Soon afterwards, the question became how to send them back.
Now, nine years later, the question is more difficult:
When will Myanmar become safe enough for them to return?
And if it takes another one, two or three years, how will Bangladesh manage this huge population while ensuring humanitarian dignity and security and protecting the interests of local communities?

Three realities emerged clearly from the statements of the participants.
First, the Rohingyas want to return.

This was also clear from Camp-in-Charge Arafat-ul-Alam’s remarks. He said almost all Rohingyas want to return to their own homeland.

Second, Bangladesh also sees repatriation as the primary solution.
Third, the reality of control in the part of Myanmar where they are expected to return has changed fundamentally.

Syed Ullah therefore says that Bangladesh needs a strategic plan rather than simply repeating calls for repatriation.

Mujibur Rahman says that such a plan will be difficult to implement without involving regional powers such as China and India.

And the camp official says Bangladesh’s policy has always been centred on repatriation, but the international community must hold Myanmar accountable for creating the conditions for return.

Professor Rahman Nasir Uddin raises an even more fundamental question: what is the security and administrative reality of the territory to which the Rohingyas are expected to return?

‘Where Is the Myanmar They Can Return To?’

Taken together, the views expressed at the roundtable reveal three major realities facing Rohingya repatriation.

The Rohingyas want to return.
Bangladesh wants them to return.

But conflict continues in the part of Myanmar to which they are expected to return, and the old equation of control has changed.

As a result, repatriation is no longer simply a matter of an agreement between two governments across a border. It is now intertwined with the realities of territorial control in Rakhine, Rohingya identity and citizenship, security, land and property rights, livelihoods, education, the interests of host communities, and regional and global geopolitics.

That is why there was broad agreement among the participants at the roundtable on one point: repatriation is ultimately the solution, but the environment required to implement it does not yet exist.

Making repatriation a reality will therefore require more than preparing a new list or holding another round of meetings.

It requires a strategic roadmap based on the current reality in Myanmar, the involvement of regional powers, guarantees for Rohingya identity and security, and sustained international pressure.

At the same time, Bangladesh needs a long-term policy to ensure education, skills, livelihoods and human dignity for the Rohingyas while repatriation remains impossible.
If creating the conditions for repatriation takes several more years, it will not be possible to pass that time through humanitarian aid alone.

The question, therefore, is no longer simply “When will the Rohingyas return?”

The question is: “When will Myanmar become a place they can safely return to, and what policy will Bangladesh adopt to manage the crisis until that time?”

The answers emerging from the roundtable suggest that Bangladesh cannot simply wait for repatriation.

Diplomacy is needed to make repatriation possible, but a realistic national policy is equally necessary until repatriation takes place.

And at the centre of that policy must be the interests of all three sides: the Rohingyas, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

The roundtable titled “How Far Is the Future of Rohingya Repatriation?” was held on Thursday afternoon at the Cox’s Bazar District Council Auditorium. It was organised by local media outlet Bay Insight and voluntary organisation Embolden Bangladesh. The discussion was moderated by Bay Insight Editor Sourav Deb. Hasna Hossain, director of Bay Insight Media Group and chairman of Embolden Bangladesh, chaired the event, while Embolden Bangladesh founder Inzamam-ul-Haque delivered the opening remarks.